- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Some teach or speculate that the Angel of the Lord is a pre-existant Christ. Again this is speculation, but I forward these 2 scriptures that could point to this:
Judges 13:16-18
16 The angel of the LORD said to Manoah, “Though you detain me, I will not eat your food, but if you prepare a burnt offering, then offer it to the LORD.” For Manoah did not know that he was the angel of the LORD.
17 Manoah said to the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that when your words come to pass, we may honor you?”
18 But the angel of the LORD said to him, “Why do you ask my name, seeing it is wonderful?”Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.We know Isaiah 9:6 is Christ and he is called wonderful counselor and the Angel of the Lord is called 'Wonderful'.
NOTE: There were no commas in the original texts.The word 'wonderful' in both scriptures are as follows:
Judges 13:16-18 Transliteration – pil'iy {pil-ee'} or paliy' {paw-lee'}
Word Origin – from 6381
Part of Speech – adjective
Usage in the KJV – secret 1, wonderful 1, variant 2Isaiah 9:6 Transliteration – pele' {peh'-leh}
Word Origin – from 6381
Part of Speech – noun masculine
Usage in the KJV – wonder 8, wonderful 3, wonderfully 1, marvellousThey are effectively the same word, but one is used as an adjective and the other as a noun.
This on it's own doesn't hold much water, but there are other verses that could point to this notion.
Acts:7:36-39
36 He led them out of Egypt and did wonders and miraculous signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea and for forty years in the desert.
37 “This is that Moses who told the Israelites, 'God will send you a prophet like me from your own people.'
38 He was in the assembly in the desert, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers; and he received living words to pass on to us.
39 “But our fathers refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt.1 Corinthians 10:1-4
1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.Now compare the next 3 scriptures:
Numbers 21:5-6
5 The people spoke against God and Moses, “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we loathe this miserable food.”
6 The LORD sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died.Judges 2:1
1 Now the angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim And he said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, 'I will never break My covenant with you,1 Corinthians 10:9 KJV
9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.So in 3 accounts we have the LORD, Angel of the Lord, and Christ. Although some other translations do not have the word 'Christ' in this verse. (Could be the Trinity bias of the KJV at work?)
Anyway, are they the same being?
Are they different beings of rank working toward the same purpose?So far I have speculated that the Angel of the Lord is Christ.
To speculate that they are all different beings, I give this next verse:Revelation 1:1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant JohnWhat do others think?
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;
The Revelation of Jesus Christ (or is it?) which God gave Him (God gave the Revelation, Doesn't that make it the Revelation of God?)……and He (Jesus) sent and signified it by “His Angel” unto His servant John.
Who is Jesus' Angel? Is Jesus' Angel Michael the Archangel?
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;
…with a shout, with the voice of an archangel..
Is it the Lord that is going to shout, or is it the angel of the Lord that will announce His coming?In Revelations it is Jesus' angel that gives the revelation to John.
Are the angel in 1Thess. 4:16 and Revelation 1:1 the same angel?Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which “I had with thee before the world was”
Jesus is Lord or all! Why would He want to return to being an angel?
Hi,
My view
Jesus was never an angel.
As life he was involved in all creation including that of angels
Hebrews 1-2 goes to great lengths to differentiate between Jesus and the angels.
If Jesus came to earth before us he had advantages over us.The verse in 1Cor 10 I believe is enlarged by 1Peter 1.10f
“As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to come to you made careful searches and enquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow”The Spirit of Christ was with the Prophets and with Moses in the desert, the Holy Spirit.
Quote (kenrch @ June 22 2006,19:27) Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; The Revelation of Jesus Christ (or is it?) which God gave Him (God gave the Revelation, Doesn't that make it the Revelation of God?)……and He (Jesus) sent and signified it by “His Angel” unto His servant John.
Who is Jesus' Angel? Is Jesus' Angel Michael the Archangel?
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;
…with a shout, with the voice of an archangel..
Is it the Lord that is going to shout, or is it the angel of the Lord that will announce His coming?In Revelations it is Jesus' angel that gives the revelation to John.
Are the angel in 1Thess. 4:16 and Revelation 1:1 the same angel?Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which “I had with thee before the world was”
Jesus is Lord or all! Why would He want to return to being an angel?
Hi kenrch,
Jesus is the Word of God so the revelation comes from God originally and God gives it and all authority to the Son and chooses to do all things through the Son.It appears from the verse about the angels of the little ones in Christ beholding the face of God and the comments about those at the house of John Mark's family discussing Peter knocking at the gate in Acts 12, that we all have an angel.
Hebrews 1.14, too says angels serve the saved. So it is no surprise that Jesus has an angel just as there is also an angel called “the angel of the Lord' who serves God and speaks for God.
Michael is said in Daniel I think to be in charge of the Israelites.
1thess 4 16 simply says “the archangel”so we cannot know which one.
The following is food for thought regarding the meaning of the word angel.
The word angel means 'messenger' and is not always referring to cherub. The Angel of the Lord literally means messenger of the LORD. The word 'messenger' is used to describe what we know to be cherubs & seraphs, but also Christ, and prophets too.
In both Hebrew and Greek, the words for “angel” simply means “messenger”.
When people from the spiritual world appeared, they usually brought messages from the Lord, so they were called “messengers” (Greek angeloi). Some have suggested that being an angel is a matter of one's function or office, not one's race. In this respect the word “angel” is like the words “king” and “prophet” – it describes the person's function.
In fact, since the word for angel means “messenger” it is used to describe people on earth who are messengers. For example, Haggai and John the Baptist were called messengers or “angels” of the Lord because they spoke for Him
Haggai 1:13
13 Then Haggai, the LORD's messenger, gave this message of the LORD to the people: “I am with you,” declares the LORD.Thus the prophet Haggai was called God's messenger (angel); and it is known that “Malachi” is not a real name, but means “messenger” or “angel”.
Malachi 3:1
1 “See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.Almost without exception this passage has been interpreted to refer to two messengers – John the Baptist as the first messenger (or angel) “preparing the way” and the Lord Jesus Christ as the second “messenger (or angel) of the covenant”. It is also quoted in Matt.11:10.
The word for angel (messenger) in the OT is mal'ak {mal-awk'} – hence Malachi.
The scripture below talks of a messenger who forgives sins and also has God's name in him.
Exodus 23:20-23
20 “See, I am sending an angel (messenger) ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.
21 Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.
22 If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and will oppose those who oppose you.
23 My angel will go ahead of you and bring you into the land of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites and Jebusites, and I will wipe them out.So it seems messengers are angels whether they are man, son of God, cherub, or seraph. Therefore it seems entirely possible (but not conclusive) in this context that Jesus could have been the Angel of the LORD, as he is the messenger of the LORD and the Word of God.
The following is quoted from a webpage I read recently:
I think it is unfortunate that the Greek word for messenger — “angel” — has become fastened onto our English vocabulary. For most people an angel is a supernatural being with wings. What has happened is that human messengers or prophets have become confused with messengers on short-term assignments from heaven, whether spirit-beings or resurrected personages. A whole mythology has developed about “angels” over the millennia which has not only separated them from mortal human beings but put wings on their backs also!
It really is time to demythologise angels and to understand the connection between human angels (prophets/messengers) and heavenly angels (spirits/ resurrected personages), for they are of the same origin. How else could angels have had intercourse with human women and created a race of giants? Why didn't their babies have wings? (There is alot of mythology attached to this also which we could examine another time).
I am all in favour of dropping the Greek word “angel” because of the confusion and superstition it creates in men's minds. We even use the term “angel” to refer to a child who is sweet and innocent, or a person who is particularly kind and helpful. But this is an example of the evolution of our language in a direction that perverts the original meaning. For most people an “angel” is fat, tubby little child hovering in a cloud playing a harp. But who would describe John the Baptist, who wore animal skins, ate locusts and honey, and breathed God's judgment on a wicked generation as an “angel”? Yet that is exactly what he was! So a change in vocabulary, especially amongst Christians, is long over due.
In any case, supernatural beings who are God's messengers already have proper names like cherubim and sepharim which ought to be used where appropriate. Todays earthly angels are called messengers, of which there are several kinds: patriarchs, prophets, apostles, evangelists, and pastors.
Hi t8,
Just because the word angel means messenger does not show that angels do not exist.Satan means “adversary” but only the Christadeplhians dare to wrongly claim that thus he does not exist.
Matt 4.6
“..'He will give His angels charge concerning you;And on their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot on a stone”
Gal 1.8
” But even if we or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed”
Lk 2.9
” And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened”Are these human messengers?
Men would manipulate words to muddy the water so they can lead men after them into their paths of deceit.
The verse in Malachi certainly shows Jesus as a messenger of God. the Messiah brought the good news of salvation from God.
Hi Nick,
I think you got the wrong end of the stick.
I am not denying angels, I am saying that angels can refer to cherubs and men too.
Like the word god or prophet, it appears to be an office, not a race.Yes Michael is an angel (messenger), but his race is Seraph (I think), perhaps cherub.
In the Old Testament, Christ is refered to as an angel or mal'ak {mal-awk'}, just as John the Baptist is too.
Hi t8,
Maybe I did,
But did you or your quoted writer, not say angels are messengers, so the term angel should be dropped? If the term is dropped what is the name then of this class of heavenly beings? Messengers?How does that separate human or donkey messengers from these glorious beings?No I am not proposing that we drop the term. It was mentioned in the text I quoted and was not meant to be a statement, rather something to perhaps glean something from.
Messengers of the LORD can be cherubim or man. God uses us and even some of the hosts of Heaven to bring messages. As far as defining earthly messengers from heavenly ones, I can only suggest reading the context.
Like the word 'god', it can be used to define the Almighty right down to a wooden sculpture. We determine which kind of god by the context.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 22 2006,22:44) Quote (kenrch @ June 22 2006,19:27) Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; The Revelation of Jesus Christ (or is it?) which God gave Him (God gave the Revelation, Doesn't that make it the Revelation of God?)……and He (Jesus) sent and signified it by “His Angel” unto His servant John.
Who is Jesus' Angel? Is Jesus' Angel Michael the Archangel?
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;
…with a shout, with the voice of an archangel..
Is it the Lord that is going to shout, or is it the angel of the Lord that will announce His coming?In Revelations it is Jesus' angel that gives the revelation to John.
Are the angel in 1Thess. 4:16 and Revelation 1:1 the same angel?Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which “I had with thee before the world was”
Jesus is Lord or all! Why would He want to return to being an angel?
Hi kenrch,
Jesus is the Word of God so the revelation comes from God originally and God gives it and all authority to the Son and chooses to do all things through the Son.It appears from the verse about the angels of the little ones in Christ beholding the face of God and the comments about those at the house of John Mark's family discussing Peter knocking at the gate in Acts 12, that we all have an angel.
Hebrews 1.14, too says angels serve the saved. So it is no surprise that Jesus has an angel just as there is also an angel called “the angel of the Lord' who serves God and speaks for God.
Michael is said in Daniel I think to be in charge of the Israelites.
1thess 4 16 simply says “the archangel”so we cannot know which one.
Jesus the son of God you would think that He is worthy of an archangel to be His servant.If Jesus is Michael then an archangel sent his angel. And the Son of God is an archangel.
Sure, Jesus has all created beings as his servants.
Michael is called the great prince, Jesus is the Prince of princes.Quote (t8 @ June 23 2006,02:03) Sure, Jesus has all created beings as his servants.
Michael is called the great prince, Jesus is the Price of princes.
Then if Michael is the only archangel then either it is Michael who is announcing Jesus in 1 Thess. or Jesus is an archangel.Wouldn't you say?
Quote (t8 @ June 23 2006,01:20) No I am not proposing that we drop the term. It was mentioned in the text I quoted and was not meant to be a statement, rather something to perhaps glean something from. Messengers of the LORD can be cherubim or man. God uses us and even some of the hosts of Heaven to bring messages. As far as defining earthly messengers from heavenly ones, I can only suggest reading the context.
Like the word 'god', it can be used to define the Almighty right down to a wooden sculpture. We determine which kind of god by the context.
Hi t8,
Do you believe there is a class of heavenly beings that is superior to natural man and, if so, what is their name?
Should they be called heavenly messengers?I am pleased the translators have given us a name by which to distinguish these beings other wise it would be bizzarre.
Does Archangel become chief messenger?
Not all angels are sons of God.
Not all angels are Princes.And the Prince of Princes is not an angelic prince but a higher being yet.
To kenrch,
My guess is that it's Michael. But just because the bible says that Michael is an archangel, it doesn't exclude that there are other archangels. Many think that Gabriel is also and that Satan use to be the Chief Cherub, so he was one too.
However the bible doesn't go into the subject of angels to a great degree. The Book of Enoch is much more detailed in that respect, and mentions Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael as archangels (among others).
Quote (t8 @ June 23 2006,02:51) My guess is that it's Michael. But just because the bible says that Michael is an archangel, it doesn't exclude that there are other archangels. Many think that Gabriel is also and that Satan use to be the Chief Cherub, so he was one too. However the bible doesn't go into the subject of angels to a great degree. The Book of Enoch is much more detailed in that respect, and mentions Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael as archangels (among others).
That's the point I was trying to make. Rev. 22:14 Jesus uses an angel to relate the messange. Then 1 Thess should also be an angel….Michael the Archangel. Which of course nullify the JWs. But that's the way I see it.Quote (kenrch @ June 23 2006,02:45) Quote (t8 @ June 23 2006,02:03) Sure, Jesus has all created beings as his servants.
Michael is called the great prince, Jesus is the Price of princes.
Then if Michael is the only archangel then either it is Michael who is announcing Jesus in 1 Thess. or Jesus is an archangel.Wouldn't you say?
Hi kenrch,
Other princes exist, or Michael would not be called “one of the chief princes” in Daniel.
The JWs went down this path and decided Jesus was an archangel because of comparing 1 Thess 4 with John, and then since they only found one in the bible decided Jesus was Michael.
Any reading of Hebrews 1-2 , where Jesus is CONTRASTED with the angels must lead to the conclusion that he is not one.
He is the LIFE. Their life came through him so he is greater than any ordinary messenger, or even a chief of those messengers.Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 23 2006,21:50) Hi t8,
Do you believe there is a class of heavenly beings that is superior to natural man and, if so, what is their name?
Should they be called heavenly messengers?I am pleased the translators have given us a name by which to distinguish these beings other wise it would be bizzarre.
Does Archangel become chief messenger?
Not all angels are sons of God.
Not all angels are Princes.And the Prince of Princes is not an angelic prince but a higher being yet.
Hi Nick,Yes of course I believe in the heavenly hosts. They are made up of Cherubs, Seraphs, even men (Elijah and Moses) and perhaps many more tribes or races of beings. They are of course the sons of God and in the next age it is written that we will be like them, perhaps in reference to glory, but maybe even more so.
It is also worth noting that heavenly angels who come to earth on missions seem indistinguishable from humans. Perhaps they can change their form. Paul tells us that some of us will entertain angels unaware, heavenly or not I do not know.
Of course as you mention, the translators have rendered the word 'angel' as 'messenger' when talking of men. But my point is that we are at the mercy of the translators decision or even bias.
That is why I asked the question in the first place. i.e., Is the pre-existant Jesus, the Messenger of the LORD in the Old Testament. Because there is really nothing but assumption to suggest that it is talking about a cherub or seraph (or winged creature).
I thought it a timely question as there was a question from yourself in another discussion in reponse to a post I made regarding an Old Testament description of a being that was similar to Christ's description in the Book of Revelation.
My intention was to never create confusion, rather to test all things as it says to do.
At the end of the day we may not have the answers, but if we seek, then God just may reveal something to us.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 23 2006,03:03) Quote (kenrch @ June 23 2006,02:45) Quote (t8 @ June 23 2006,02:03) Sure, Jesus has all created beings as his servants.
Michael is called the great prince, Jesus is the Price of princes.
Then if Michael is the only archangel then either it is Michael who is announcing Jesus in 1 Thess. or Jesus is an archangel.Wouldn't you say?
Hi kenrch,
Other princes exist, or Michael would not be called “one of the chief princes” in Daniel.
The JWs went down this path and decided Jesus was an archangel because of comparing 1 Thess 4 with John, and then since they only found one in the bible decided Jesus was Michael.
Any reading of Hebrews 1-2 , where Jesus is CONTRASTED with the angels must lead to the conclusion that he is not one.
He is the LIFE. Their life came through him so he is greater than any ordinary messenger, or even a chief of those messengers.
So then it is “AN” Archangel that is announceing Jesus' return.I remember David saying that to assume that an Archangel's voice and not Jesus' is wrong (somewhere along those lines). The point I'm making is if Jesus sent an angel to John then it is absoutly possible that it is an Archangel announcing Jesus. CORRECT? Jesus seems to send messengers than deliver the message Himself just like the Father.
Just trying to put two scriptures together to show that Jesus is NOT an Archangel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
